Money is a social relationship. If money were distributed from the rich to the poor, the astounding thing wouldn’t be the numbers in bank accounts but rather the complete inversion of capitalist values. And if these values are to be inverted, then numbers in bank accounts are probably irrelevant. I don’t think these comparisons are supposed to be literal. It’s more about the massive inequality and anti-human values of the current system. Realistically capitalism is violently enforced by states, etc. so there will be no justice in the foreseeable future.
JustTesting@lemmy.hogru.ch 3 weeks ago
One thing I always wonder is if it actually could end poverty 22 times over.
i mean, rich people hoarding money is increasing moneys scarcity for everyone else, theoretically increasing its value. And if it were suddenly distibuted fairly, it’d lose value and there would be a higher cut off for what’s considered poverty. on the other hand, a lot of their money is funny money, like being tied up in stocks and not actually worth as much in currency compared to what is said (if they sold the stock, the value would drop and they’d get less).
so i’m actually curious if anyone ever did an analysis of what would happen if e.g. the wealth of the top 0.1% is evenly spread across the population.
of course that’s super complex and hard to say what the social effects would be. But the simplistic ‘everyone would get x dollars, poverty limit is y, x > y, so no more poverty’, while useful to show the scale, always sounded too naive to me.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
DancingBear@midwest.social 2 weeks ago
Fairly certain countries with more equitable income and wealth gap have a lot of major problems solved compared to countries that dont